The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?  (Read 5944 times)

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed? People must learn to question what they are told:
- “Do I really know what I’m being told is true, or am I just assuming that it is true?”
- “Have I looked into the subject matter deeply enough or am I mindlessly accepting it?”
- “Who or what are the authority figures in my life that are influencing my thoughts and behaviors – governments, parents, friends, experts, religious beliefs, advertisements, scientific beliefs, trending topics on the internet,…?”
- “Is there an ulterior motive behind the propaganda that is being cast upon me and the human race, and if so, what is that motive?”

Instead of being satisfied with the immediate answers that come to their minds, they must try to be with the questions and see what experiences or insights they gain from them.

Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory? It is the theory that "precludes" any objects from travelling at superluminal speeds. Often the opponents of the ET Intervention claim that no such visitation by extraterrestrial races is possible because of the theory. I invite you to consider the theory from a new perspective.


----------------------------------------------

A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.
As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”

The equation in Special Relativity “precludes” any object from traveling at any speed close to the luminal speed, and thus, v≪c. Then, in the time t that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling as observed by an outside observer, the distance traveled by the vehicle and the distance traveled by the light to the ceiling as observed by an outside observer are significantly different, and the situation cannot be described by a right triangle because the distance x is significantly less than the distance z. The Pythagorean Theorem used to “prove” the theory does not apply in the situation where the distance from the floor to the ceiling is insignificant compared to the distance z as well. On the other hand, for the Pythagorean Theorem to be applied in the situation, the speed of the vehicle v must be quite close to the luminal speed c in order to form a right triangle as above. But then the theory indicates that the value v cannot be anywhere near c. It is a contradiction either way.

Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position within a second or two is already a counterexample to this theory, which disproves it. The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #1 on: 13/12/2014 18:18:10 »
Quote from: ResistETIntervention
Have certain scientists in the past and present been artificially and unduly elevated to a celebrity position where they were/are revered by their peers, followers, and thus, laymen with no expertise in their fields, so that the statements of such people (no matter what they claim) could not be disputed?
No.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
People must learn to question what hey are told:
Everyone already does that. Scientists more so.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
Have you ever pondered upon the Special Relativity Theory?
I never met a physicist who hasn't. I also never met a physicist that didn't both question it and attempt to break it.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
A vehicle traveling at a speed of v m/s for t seconds traveled a distance of x=vt . Suppose this vehicle had a mirror in the ceiling and floor. The passenger in the vehicle sees the light traveling from the floor to the ceiling at the luminal speed of c=3×10^8 m/s in T seconds for a distance of y=cT meters. An observer outside the vehicle sees the light traveling at the luminal speed for t seconds for a distance of z=ct meters when the light beam hits the ceiling. The assumption made here is that the situation can be described by a right triangle above and thus, the two (different) times, t and T, can be related by the Pythagorean Theorem as below:

t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2), where "sqrt" is a symbol we use here to indicate the square root.
As v→c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2→0, making the left-hand-side of the equation approach infinity. If v>c, the radicand 1-(v/c)^2<0, and thus an imaginary number in the denominator of the quantity. Hence, the assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is “proved.”
That is incorrect. You confused the motion of the frame of reference with the motion of a particle. The reason a particle can't move at or faster than the speed of light is given here:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/inertial_mass.htm

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
Regardless of the faulty assumption made in “proving” the theory, ..
Theories cannot be proven in science. That they can is a common misconception.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position ...
No you haven't. What evidence do you have of this? What experiment did you do to demonstrate this? How did you measure the speed?

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.
Utter garbage. Nobody takes claims like that on the face of it. The experiment must be described in detail and how the speed was measured must also be described in detail. If it can't be duplicated then it doesn't belong in science.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11987
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #2 on: 13/12/2014 20:00:54 »
do you really want me to take you seriously?
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #3 on: 14/12/2014 01:24:22 »
Do you not see the faulty assumptions made in the proof of the statement t=T/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ?

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
the fact that I have sighted an object that accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position ...
No you haven't. What evidence do you have of this? What experiment did you do to demonstrate this? How did you measure the speed?
I have.  You and I are like cavemen who cannot perform an experiment to demonstrate that a rocket can be launched to the moon.  We may be able to observe it, if one is launched.  However, we would not have the technology to perform any experiment to verify that it can be.  We do not have the technology to measure any superluminal speeds.  Do you know what you'd observe if an object accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position?  A hint here: you don't need a measuring device to know that it achieved a superluminal speed.     

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
The fact that many other people in the world have sighted such phenomenon verifies the disproof of the theory multiple times.
Utter garbage. Nobody takes claims like that on the face of it. The experiment must be described in detail and how the speed was measured must also be described in detail. If it can't be duplicated then it doesn't belong in science.
Apparently, many people did not regard a thought experiment performed by Einstein as "Utter garbage."  Or did he have a way of proving a negated statement "Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light" by not achieving the speed of light?
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #4 on: 14/12/2014 01:26:05 »
do you really want me to take you seriously?
If you're not arrogant, you'd pay closer to attention to what so many people observe.  Arrogance can be an obstacle to seeing the reality as is.
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #5 on: 14/12/2014 03:48:45 »
I sighted a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in a clear blue sky, which suddenly accelerated leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared.  It achieved a superluminal speed from a velocity of zero within a second or two.

Here are some experts in your fields that you're more likely to rely on.

newbielink:http://www.governmentsecrets.com/ufo-phenomena-people-speaking/# [nonactive]
newbielink:http://nationalufocenter.com/2013/10/filers-files-44-2013-albert-einstein-secret-alien-document/ [nonactive]
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #6 on: 14/12/2014 04:35:23 »
do you really want me to take you seriously?
Come on yor_on my friend. He's a newbie so let's cut him some slack. It's best to assume the best in people when you meet them and continue to do so. At worst you'll find out different as time progresses. Otherwise if he's a good guy then you'll both be in the admirable position to have treated him pleasantly from the start. People post here because they want us to take them seriously.

So far it appears that he thinks that he thinks he's alone with his notion about not merely buying whatever scientists say merely because they said it and they're well known. It sounds to me like he hasn't or isn't a physicist and hasn't learned what should and shouldn't be trusted yet. That's a very long process and is based on experience. There can be no substitute for experience. Textbooks on the philosophy of science have been written to guide scientists in this process.

When I was an undergraduate I was very concerned with these things so I decided to take a course on the philosophy of science. Most colleges and universities have such courses and it's wise for science students to take one.

In the end if there's something wrong with a theory it won't be hidden from scientists for very long. It doesn't sound like he's met or worked with a lot of scientists for an extended period of time due to the things he said in the opening post (OP).


If you're not arrogant, you'd pay closer to attention to what so many people observe.  Arrogance can be an obstacle to seeing the reality as is.
[/quote]
yor_on isn't arrogant. I suggest that you treat him and I the same way that you wish he and I to treat you. That way we'll all get along just fine. :)

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
We do not have the technology to measure any superluminal speeds.
That's incorrect for the following reason and in the following sense: If it was possible for particles with non-zero (real) mass to reach and then surpass the speed of light then we would already have observed it in all the particle accelerators around the world that physicists use on a daily basis. Everything they do and observe is absolutely consistent with Einstein's special theory of relativity including his equations of motion for which the mass of a particle m is related to its proper mass m0 (i.e. its rest mass - the mass it'd have if it was either at rest of moving slowly, i.e. v << c).

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
Do you know what you'd observe if an object accelerated to a superluminal speed from a stationary position?
Absolutely, yes. Do you? First off you certainly can't
"observe" it in any ordinary sense of the word because it'd be moving too fast for the eye to see and instruments such as radar would be ineffective on faster than light motion. You have to "observe it" in a more widely defined sense, i.e. using instrumentation.

As fat as what would be observed in this sense I worked this out and plotted a curve of what would be and has been observed in the lab. See the figures in my web page at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/uniform_accel.htm

If you don't understand the math then please let me know and I'll help you understand it.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
  A hint here: you don't need a measuring device to know that it achieved a superluminal speed.
When people such as yourself make statements like that without stating what they mean and how they claim to have observed it then it sounds to me like they're being very suspicious for some strange reason. Please explain to me why you're being so elusive and cryptic. This is a discussion forum. It's not a place to come to try to "trick" or "slip up" physicists in order to satisfy your ego. So please stop it or I'll stop my participation in this thread. You should have from the start explained everything about your so-called claim that you observed something (what the thing was you didn't state which is also suspicious) moving FTL.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #7 on: 14/12/2014 04:38:05 »
Quote from: ResistETIntervention
I sighted a brilliant spot of light completely stationary in a clear blue sky, which suddenly accelerated leaving a white trail of light tapering off towards a point where it "poof" disappeared.  It achieved a superluminal speed from a velocity of zero within a second or two.
How could you possibly know how fast it was going by merely looking at it? No physicist in his right mind would ever dare make such statement because its a fact that a human cannot make such a determination. Light moves so fast that it can go around the earth three times in one second! Suppose it was moving at the speed of light. Then it take 27 microseconds to move 5 miles from where you were. Suppose it was moving faster than light. E.g. instead of moving 186,000 miles per second it was moving twice as fast, i.e. 372,000 miles per second. In that case it would take 13 microseconds to travel the same distance. Do you seriously expect anybody to believe you when you claim to know the difference between 27 microseconds and 13 microseconds? It's quite literally impossible for a human being to make such a determination using his or her senses.

Therefore you can't expect anybody to accept that as "proof" of your claim. Especially since it's not possible for a human to know how much time has passed when the time intervals are that small.

In any case, from what you just described I know that it was moving a great deal slower than the speed of light.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
Here are some experts in your fields that you're more likely to rely on.
I'm not going to read that whole thing since it's a crackpot site but I did read a few from what the astronauts said. The said that they saw a UFO. But if you asked an astronaut what that term means when they use it they'll tell you that they mean nothing more and nothing less than "Unidentified Flying Object" and not alien spaceship. I know that because I watched a special on TV where they talked about it and said that. In fact they said that to them a UFO could just as well be an astronauts glove.

Quote from: ResistETIntervention
http://www.governmentsecrets.com/ufo-phenomena-people-speaking/#
http://nationalufocenter.com/2013/10/filers-files-44-2013-albert-einstein-secret-alien-document/
And I have no reason to believe that website. It's clearly a crackpot/crank website. The very name and URL make it sound like a conspiracy theorist website. You can't seriously believe that I'd take anything at a site named Government Secrets seriously, can you?
« Last Edit: 14/12/2014 05:08:49 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #8 on: 14/12/2014 05:46:35 »
Each one of us human beings has the responsibility of becoming aware of the reality that is occurring in our world.   

Regarding the Extraterrestrial Intervention, our ignorance is our worst enemy.

If you search, you can find youtube interviews of some of the people on newbielink:http://www.governmentsecrets.com/ufo-phenomena-people-speaking/# [nonactive]

Here're some of them:

(Astronaut, Colonel Gordon Cooper in 2007)

(Astronaut, Edgar Mitchell interviewed in 2008) 
Quote starting from 10:12
“Non-locality is the idea that this information between the two is transported or are instantly recognized regardless of what the other part is in the universe.  Well, this kind of challenges Einstein’s concept that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.  Here, we have validated that this is absolutely true - that it does.  How this happens, the methodology, and the mechanism for it is still very elusive, but the fact that it does happen – that’s not in question any more.”

May we have the courage to face this and see it for what it is...

 
« Last Edit: 14/12/2014 05:50:18 by ResistETIntervention »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #9 on: 14/12/2014 06:53:16 »
Tell me something ResistETIntervention.  All the comments that you've made throughout this thread are very obvious to every one. Even more so to the people who regularly participate in a physics discussion forum.  In this particular forum there are a lot of very intelligent people, which you should expect when you visit a physics forum. So what reason do you have for assuming that everyone here isn't already aware of all the things you've been saying? Especially to physicists such as myself. I've been a physicist going on 25 years now so I suspect that there's hardly anything that you could tell me that I don't already know already. I know that sounds arrogant I'm not trying to be. It's something I've come to learn based on experience with people who come to these forums expecting to find people who don't already know what they thought was an original thought.

I've also saw those videos of Cooper and Mitchell several times. I have my own personal beliefs about this so-called alien issue and I choose not to discuss it in forums. Those people who believe that we're being visited can't be reasoned with. They're assumptions and beliefs are merely based on faith and not logic. The purpose of this forum is not for this kind of discussion, it's for mainstream physics.
« Last Edit: 14/12/2014 07:16:24 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3817
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #10 on: 14/12/2014 09:13:57 »
I have a good quality oscilloscope an the little spot on the screen will certainly move faster than the speed of light !
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #11 on: 14/12/2014 10:28:58 »
I have a good quality oscilloscope an the little spot on the screen will certainly move faster than the speed of light !
You mean to tell me that your O-scope has a sweeping rate near the gigahertz! If the width of the screen is T = 15 cm then it takes an amount of time of T = W/c for the beam to go in a straight line from left to right. The corresponding sweep frequency is 2 Ghz

If the spot does trace out a trajectory which is faster than light then it doesn't apply to the rule that nothing can move faster than the speed of light since the spot is not an object having mass which is moving FTL. The spot is just the illumination of the phosphorus on the screen. So first spot A is illuminated and then the direction of the beam moves to spot B which is then illuminated and on and on in a continuous fashion, nothing moving FTL during the process.  This is like shining a beam of light on a wall using a flashlight and moving the beam across the wall by changing the angle that the flashlight points. If the angular velocity of the flashlight is large enough and the wall that it's shining on far enough away then the spot of light will move faster than the speed of light. However at no time is light moving faster than light.
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3817
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #12 on: 14/12/2014 20:38:23 »
Sorry about that but I felt phase velocity should be mentioned.
Such oscilloscopes are available but my one is more modest
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #13 on: 15/12/2014 14:16:53 »
“Non-locality is the idea that this information between the two is transported or are instantly recognized regardless of what the other part is in the universe.  Well, this kind of challenges Einstein’s concept that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.  Here, we have validated that this is absolutely true - that it does.  How this happens, the methodology, and the mechanism for it is still very elusive, but the fact that it does happen – that’s not in question any more.”
As I understand the situation, this statement is neither correct, nor the whole story (if I get this wrong, by all means let me know). Firstly, non-locality is just one interpretation of what QM experiments may be telling us. Secondly, Special Relativity doesn't explicitly prohibit FTL travel, it prohibits acceleration from below light speed to light speed or beyond; also, the potential non-locality demonstrated by EPR entangled particle experiments doesn't challenge SR because it doesn't involve information transfer - which is an indication that it may only be the appearance of non-locality; alternative interpretations (e.g. abandoning either local realism or the possibility of making definite statements about a system without measuring it) are possible.   

This is not to say it's all understood, but it certainly won't be understood if the analysis is based on faulty propositions.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #14 on: 15/12/2014 18:04:46 »
“Non-locality is the idea that this information between the two is transported or are instantly recognized regardless of what the other part is in the universe.  Well, this kind of challenges Einstein’s concept that nothing moves faster than the speed of light.  Here, we have validated that this is absolutely true - that it does.  How this happens, the methodology, and the mechanism for it is still very elusive, but the fact that it does happen – that’s not in question any more.”
As I understand the situation, this statement is neither correct, nor the whole story (if I get this wrong, by all means let me know). Firstly, non-locality is just one interpretation of what QM experiments may be telling us. Secondly, Special Relativity doesn't explicitly prohibit FTL travel, it prohibits acceleration from below light speed to light speed or beyond; also, the potential non-locality demonstrated by EPR entangled particle experiments doesn't challenge SR because it doesn't involve information transfer - which is an indication that it may only be the appearance of non-locality; alternative interpretations (e.g. abandoning either local realism or the possibility of making definite statements about a system without measuring it) are possible.   

This is not to say it's all understood, but it certainly won't be understood if the analysis is based on faulty propositions.

He's got it all wrong. There is nothing in quantum mechanics that allows information to be transmitted faster than light (FTL). The phenomena of quantum entanglement cannot be used to transmit information FTL. That's a common mistake.
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Einstein's Theory revisited
« Reply #15 on: 18/12/2014 23:38:23 »
What went wrong in the proof of the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?

In a “normal” size vehicle, let say with the height of the interior of the vehicle (the distance from the floor to the ceiling) is about 3 m (≈3.28 yards), the time it takes the light beam emitted from its source on the floor to hit the ceiling is 10-8 of a second – literally a split bit of a second.   

The right triangle used to prove in the theory above is obtained under the assumptions that:
   
  • Light would travel at the constant speed c=3×108  m/s regardless of the frame of reference.
  • From the external observer’s perspective, light would hit the ceiling of the vehicle at the point B on the ceiling directly above the point A where the source of light is on the floor. 
  • Two different frames of reference (the passenger’s perspective and the external observer’s perspective) could be related in one single diagram.

The first assumption would seem to hold in the case the velocity of the vehicle is insignificant compared to the speed of light:  v≪c which is the underlying assumption which leads to the same conclusion.  But what if v≈c?  From the perspective of the passenger, would the light beam still seem to travel at the constant speed c=3×108  m/s? 
 
The second assumption is made under the presumption that the light beam emitted from its source at the point A on the floor will hit the point B directly above it on the ceiling.  Once “airborne,” the light beam does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle.  Thus, it will travel in a straight, vertical path.  Again, if v≪c, then it would seem that the light beam would hit the point B on the ceiling directly above the source on the floor, as it would if the vehicle were stationary.  Indeed, it would seem insignificant where on the ceiling the light beam hits because it would require nanotechnology to measure the infinitesimal distance between the point C on the ceiling where the light beam actually hits and the point B which is directly above the light source at the point A on the floor.  However, this insignificant distance is actually the length of the base of the right triangle used in describing Einstein’s thought experiment.  So, as insignificant as it may seem, it must be noted that the light beam will not hit the point directly above its source, but towards west (if the vehicle is traveling in the east direction) and distance x away, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer.

Assume, for the moment, the third supposition above – that the scenario can be described in a triangle by combining the two different frames of reference – is justifiable.  Then the right triangle used in proving the theory above is as follows, where
  • z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the external observer,
  • x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer,
  • y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle

Note that x≪z is in any realistic situation, since in the best of scenarios, even if manmade, supersonic vehicles attain ten times the speed of sound (Mach 10), this right triangle would be so skinny (y≈z) that it would be almost a vertical line segment, rather than a triangle.   

However, there is no reason to presume that v≪c before anything is proven yet.  In that case, there is no reason to make the first two assumptions.  For the sake of observing accurately, suppose both the passenger and the external observer can observe the scenario in an extremely slow motion, slow enough that the scenario which occurs within 10-8  second can be viewed over, say, 10 seconds.  Then, what would be true is that
   
  • From the perspective of the passenger, the light beam would not travel directly from the point A to the point B directly above it, but to the point C which is x meters to the west away from the point B on the ceiling, where x=vt0 is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0 it takes the light beam to hit the ceiling, about 10-8 second, as observed by the external observer.  That is, the passenger (traveling in east direction in the vehicle) would see the light beam as traveling northwesterly direction to the point C.
  • On the other hand, from the external observer’s perspective, the light beam which does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, would travel in a straight path vertically and hit the ceiling at the point C, rather than at the point B directly above the point A, since the vehicle would have moved x meters. 


Then, again, assuming that the scenario can be described by combining two different frames of reference, the right right-triangle (or the correct right triangle) would be then one with y as the hypotenuse, and x the base and z the height.

Here, this new right triangle (again, very skinny in any practical scenario, almost like a vertical line segment) can be used in two different cases: one in which the distance traveled by the vehicle is from the external observer’s and another in which the distance traveled by the “ground” is from the perspective of the passenger’s (if the vehicle is transparent, say).  This is by retaining the third assumption made in proving the theory above. 

In the first case, then 
   
  • z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer,
  • x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, again, as observed by the external observer,
  • y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle

In the second case,
   
  • z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer,
  • x is the distance traveled by the “ground” in time t1 that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling, as observed by the passenger,
  • y is the distance the light beam traveled in time t1, again, as observed by the passenger traveling in the vehicle

Since we do not presume that the vehicle cannot travel at the luminal or a superluminal speed, we also do not presume that the passenger sees the light beam as traveling at the speed of c=3×108  m/s.  We will label it as s for speed.  Then, by applying the Pythagorean Theorem on the right triangle in two different cases above yields the following.  In the first case, (vt0)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2, and in the second case, (vt1)2+(ct0)2=(st1)2.  Setting the two left-hand-sides equal to each other, we see that t0=t1.  That is, there is no time dilation.  The time that it takes for the light beam to hit the ceiling is the same as observed by the external observer, as well as by the passenger.  And the speed at which the light beam would seem to be moving away from the perspective of the passenger is s is the value that satisfies s2=v2+c2.  This is not the actual speed of the light beam, but only the perceived speed of the light beam, as observed by the passenger who thinks the light beam is traveling in a diagonal fashion, rather than in a vertical fashion. 

This perceived, non-actual speed of the light beam computed is a result of combining two different perspectives in one equation, which is an assumption made in “proving” Einstein’s theory: that the two different frames of reference can be combined to describe the scenario in a single diagram.  If we do not retain that assumption, then there is no triangle to describe the scenario, let alone a right triangle.  Whether we retain that assumption or not, we do not arrive at a result that precludes any object from traveling at superluminal speeds. 

In the correct right triangle, what does the distance y actually mean then, if it is to have any meaning in the diagram above without producing a non-actual, perceived quantity due to combining two difference references of frame? 
   
  • z is the distance the light beam traveled in time t0 , as observed by the external observer,
  • x is the distance traveled by the vehicle in time t0, as observed by the external observer,
  • y is the distance between the source of the light beam on the floor and the head-end of the light beam at time t0, as observed by the external observer

With this diagram which includes only one perspective, that of the external observer in a non-moving frame of reference, there is no non-actual, perceived quantity produced in computations.

This scenario may be more easily visualized if we change it by exchanging a small ball with a light beam.  Here is a thought experiment.

A thought experiment:  Consider a vehicle with a ceiling of 100 m, traveling at a speed of v=100 m/s.  Assume that in the vehicle is vacuum and with no gravity.  A ball is emitted vertically upward at a speed of c=1000 m/s (v<c), 100 m/s (v=c), or 10 m/s (v>c).  What path of the ball does a passenger in the vehicle observe and an observer outside the vehicle observe?  Once “airborne,” the ball does not “know” that it is in a moving vehicle, and it will travel in a vertical fashion as observed by an external observer, though it will seem to the passenger that it is traveling diagonally to where it hits on the ceiling.   
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #16 on: 20/12/2014 10:49:58 »
Here is another faulty assumption made in the theory: that the height of the right triangle used in the proof of the theory is y = ct. 

In reality, it should be ct - 0.5gt2.  Though, in most practical situations with small velocities (in comparison to that of light) of any manmade vehicles, we may be able to approximate it as ct , any infinitesimal difference here could make all the difference in what is considered here and cannot be ignored.  Then accordingly, the hypotenuse of the right triangle would also need to be corrected, if we still assume that we can combine two different frames of reference and describe the scenario in one equation. 
« Last Edit: 20/12/2014 10:54:14 by ResistETIntervention »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Einstein's Theory revisited
« Reply #17 on: 21/12/2014 05:33:23 »
Quote from: ResistETIntervention
What went wrong in the proof of the theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?....
Since I abhor reading posts that long I've decided not to. However some of it appears to be related to the light clock which is what I have on my website at: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/time_dilation.htm

If you think there's an error in that page then please state what it is and provide a proof that it's wrong. Thanks.
 

Offline ResistETIntervention

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #18 on: 22/12/2014 20:12:50 »
When you study a theory for which you find no algebraic or logical flaw, you start by investigating the statement of the theory.  The problem with Einstein's theory is in the statement - in the assumptions that are labeled as postulates which people erroneously presumed as an irrefutable, absolute, universal fact.

The definition of the word "postulate" is
  • a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief
  • an assumption used as a basis for mathematical reasoning
In mathematical theorems which are generally stated as "If ----, then ----," the "if" statement is not considered an absolute, universal truth, but the postulate in the statement of a theorem that is used in reasoning to derive the "then" statement.  For example, if a statement of a theorem begins with "If a function f is continuous," you do not presume that a function is always continuous.

The time dilation theory in the website you suggested begins with the following statement:
Quote
The phenomena of time dilation can be derived from the two postulates of special relativity, namely,
  • Principle of Relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference
  • Light Postulate - The speed of light in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the source
   

This would be the "if" statement that you presume in order to derive the "then" statement in the theory.  What has been misconstrued is that those postulates are absolute, universal truth that no one should question.  Unlike mathematical theorems in which certain results are derived under certain assumptions without violating any physical phenomena or raising questions about them, however, due to the nature of the statement regarding the physical universe, the postulates of Einstein's theory forces us to either accept the "if" statement along with the "then" statement of the theory as absolute truth or dispose the postulates along with the conclusion and corollaries of the theory as false - the results, and thus, the postulates, which the human technology at the time (and perhaps even now...at least, to the extent that the general public is led to believe) did not evolve enough to dispute its veracity by achieving the luminal or a superluminal speed.  In case you are one of the people who assert that the veracity of the postulates has been verified, I'd ask whether you validated its accuracy yourself, or you're taking someone else's word for granted.

You have two choices here: 
  • you can either remain passive and defend a theory that has apparently been disproved by the counterexamples from many people's observations in the world;
  • or you can become more open-minded and proactive, and explore the new technology and the science behind it that have been presented to us by their experiences and contribute to advancing science and technology for future generations.
   
What is necessary in considering the theory is
  • our humility in recognizing that we do not know everything there is to know and the human race has not attained the pinnacle of scientific and technological evolution in the universe, for indeed, we are very far from attaining it;
  • our compassion in considering the experiences of many people in the world, rather than utterly and disrespectfully disregard them for the sake of upholding a theory, or we end up undermining what the world is trying to tell us through them;
  • our objectivity in reconsidering the theory that apparently has been disproved by such experiences;
  • our open-mindedness
 
If we all practiced the above (humility, compassion, objectivity, and open-mindedness) in all situations in life, the human race would be that much closer in recognizing all global issues and uniting to resolve them collectively in facing the greatest challenge of human history. 
« Last Edit: 22/12/2014 21:34:30 by ResistETIntervention »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3914
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #19 on: 27/12/2014 18:17:42 »
In order for the photon to be seen to be describing a right triangle inside its confines the speed of the craft would have to be MASSIVELY superluminal. Is this your theory? Really? In which case you would be perceiving nothing directly behind you. It would be as if you were being chased by a black hole. The rest of the universe would APPEAR to be moving backwards in time, VERY SLOWLY. How does this help?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Nothing can travel faster than the luminal speed?
« Reply #19 on: 27/12/2014 18:17:42 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums